NFL Vol. 6

[Bronn Stone]

I don't know exactly what you mean in terms of lacking "franchise quality"

Neither franchise is a historical power. The Ravens are too young and the Falcons have too much history of mediocrity. But they are good teams this year.

[Stego]

Neither franchise is a historical power. The Ravens are too young and the Falcons have too much history of mediocrity. But they are good teams this year.

All that 'history' stuff is nonsense. The NFL isn't even 100 years old. There are people alive who were middle aged during the first super bowl. Folks need some perspective.

[Kalbear]

I really think they should do what college does for their Thursday games and have the teams who are playing them have a bye week before the game. The biggest problem with them is that both teams seem to play really sloppy with the short week, and you end up getting really crappy games regardless of who is playing in them.

[Bronn Stone]

All that 'history' stuff is nonsense. The NFL isn't even 100 years old. There are people alive who were middle aged during the first super bowl. Folks need some perspective.

My perspective is simple. I was born right around the beginning of the Super Bowl era. For most of my lifetime, Atlanta has been a doormat. I am a fan of a team in the AFC. It is harder for me to get inspired by a matchup of a currently good but long-term doormat from the conference about which I care much less.

When teams you follow and care about aren't playing, a game involving a perennial power OR at least a rivalry match are more compelling. This matchup does not. I'll watch it, but I'd be more inspired by a different one.

Thursday 12/16 will involve San Francisco (the area where I live) visiting San Diego (my hometown team). That one I'll care about a lot. Though I expect much of the Eastern Seaboard to feel otherwise.

[Kalbear]

When teams you follow and care about aren't playing, a game involving a perennial power OR at least a rivalry match are more compelling. This matchup does not. I'll watch it, but I'd be more inspired by a different one.

So...okay.

Atlanta (who has gone to a superbowl recently and was competitive for a while before the Vick issues - and then afterwards) is a perennial doormat. New England (which had a horrible team through the 80s and 90s aside from a couple weird glimpses is a franchise. Indianapolis (which was horrible before Manning) is also a franchise. New Orleans (who was horrible basically forever and ever until the last few years) is a franchise.

Basically, by that criteria New Orleans vs. New England would be unwatchable. So would NO vs. Tennessee. But Dallas vs. Miami - now that's a keeper!

[Maithanet]

I really think they should do what college does for their Thursday games and have the teams who are playing them have a bye week before the game. The biggest problem with them is that both teams seem to play really sloppy with the short week, and you end up getting really crappy games regardless of who is playing in them.

But the Thursday night games only start around midseason (didn't they used to only start after Thanksgiving?) In a couple of weeks, every team will have had their bye.

Thursday 12/16 will involve San Francisco (the area where I live) visiting San Diego (my hometown team). That one I'll care about a lot. Though I expect much of the Eastern Seaboard to feel otherwise.

You're going to have a tough time convincing any football fan outside the state of California that Chargers-Niners is a more interesting game than Ravens-Falcons.

[Jaime L]

This blows me away:

Today’s example comes from an NFL press release that touts the 2010 season as the most-watched in NFL history, with more than 175 million fans tuning in to at least one game, and NFL games representing the 14 most-watched shows on television this season.(No. 15 is an episode of Dancing With the Stars.)

NFL games have done well on television for decades, but there’s never been a time when the NFL dwarfed the competition on TV like it’s doing in 2010. Five years ago, no NFL game cracked the Top 15.

I knew I was like this, where NFL was pretty much the only appointment viewing on my TV, but didn't know America was too.

That is absurd dominance by the NFL.

[awesome possum]

This blows me away:

I knew I was like this, where NFL was pretty much the only appointment viewing on my TV, but didn't know America was too.

That is absurd dominance by the NFL.

NFL games are the only ones I will sit and watch while they're on. Everything else can be downloaded later.

Hopefully this is good news for those hoping to avoid a lockout.

[Kalbear]

But the Thursday night games only start around midseason (didn't they used to only start after Thanksgiving?) In a couple of weeks, every team will have had their bye.

Yeah, I know. I'd also like to see teams get two byes in a season.

[Bronn Stone]

Basically, by that criteria New Orleans vs. New England would be unwatchable. So would NO vs. Tennessee. But Dallas vs. Miami - now that's a keeper!

You care about the teams you care about. If you don't care about the teams involved, some other hook needs to be present. For me, with 30+ years of viewing experience, some uniforms will always inspire more interest than others - a Steelers-Raiders matchup will ALWAYS interest me, even if the Raiders are at their JaMarcusest. Because it will always call to mind the great games of the 70's.

New England has emerged as a powerhouse and evil empire. That's compelling. They've also been a huge thorn in San Diego's side. Dallas is and always will be Dallas. Even pre-Aikman, they drew a disproportionate share of the spotlight. Whereas Atlanta was disregarded everywhere, Atlanta included, for decades. One blippy Super Bowl appearance means nothing to me, much as one blippy win by Baltimore.

You're making it a bigger deal than I am. I will watch the game. But I was just noticing I had to invent reasons to care - including using Matt Bryant as a Fantasy kicker in a couple of leagues just so I could root for something tonight.

Dallas-ANYONE would be compelling right now, in a train-wreck happening before your eyes kind of way.

[DanteGabriel]

This blows me away:

I knew I was like this, where NFL was pretty much the only appointment viewing on my TV, but didn't know America was too.

That is absurd dominance by the NFL.

Especially because at least one former NFL star always seems to be on Dancing with the Stars. Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, Kurt Warner... I'm rooting for Brett Favre to be on next year. The one season I watched that show was because of Jerry Rice. Well, no, it was more about Stacy Kiebler, but the Jerry Rice thing makes for a better point.

[Jaime L]

NFL games are the only ones I will sit and watch while they're on. Everything else can be downloaded later.

That's pretty much my take. If you miss an NFL game live it's a completely derivative experience to watch it later. For TV shows, there's no real difference.

[Arakasi]

There are such things as public teams, as gamblers like to call them. (I believe that is the name of the term, I don't know which Bill Simmons podcast I got them from) There are other such teams that are the opposite of public teams, that will always get less attention then they deserve, even if they are a good team that year.

List of public teams: Green Bay, Dallas, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, New England

List of no one care teams: Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Arizona

If your team is in the top list, it will draw well nationally even if the teams suck. If your team is in the bottom then chances are no one wants you on nationally televised games. For the vast majority of teams in the middle, whether they are relevant that year is a pretty big factor in how they'll do ratings wise.

Edit: Right now a Dallas/Niners game would get vastly more national audience than a Tampa Bay/Arizona game, even though the second game is far more important to the playoff picture.

[Darkostar]

You care about the teams you care about.

The wisest NFL related sentence since "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!"

[DanteGabriel]

There are such things as public teams, as gamblers like to call them. (I believe that is the name of the term, I don't know which Bill Simmons podcast I got them from) There are other such teams that are the opposite of public teams, that will always get less attention then they deserve, even if they are a good team that year.

List of public teams: Green Bay, Dallas, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, New England

List of no one care teams: Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Arizona

If your team is in the top list, it will draw well nationally even if the teams suck. If your team is in the bottom then chances are no one wants you on nationally televised games. For the vast majority of teams in the middle, whether they are relevant that year is a pretty big factor in how they'll do ratings wise.

Edit: Right now a Dallas/Niners game would get vastly more national audience than a Tampa Bay/Arizona game, even though the second game is far more important to the playoff picture.

Is San Francisco still a public team, over a decade after Steve Young retired? How long do teams remain public? Was Buffalo a public team in the 1990s? I'm not trying to poke holes in this list, I just like chewing on the boundaries of lists like this.

The Pats certainly wouldn't have been a public team ten years ago, but the last ten years have made them so. I'm wondering how long they'll remain so, even after the current run of fielding a contender every year ends.

[Arakasi]

Is San Francisco still a public team, over a decade after Steve Young retired? How long do teams remain public? Was Buffalo a public team in the 1990s? I'm not trying to poke holes in this list, I just like chewing on the boundaries of lists like this.

The Pats certainly wouldn't have been a public team ten years ago, but the last ten years have made them so. I'm wondering how long they'll remain so, even after the current run of fielding a contender every year ends.

Virtually all NE teams are public teams for the leagues they are in, regardless of their success. Bruins haven't won in decades, yet they are still there. Same with the Pats when they are bad. NE fans travel very very well and they're spread around the country. Even if the team is bad (and yes the Pats were bad for a while) they are still very popular. The only reason the NY teams aren't really public teams is because they are two of them and they split the audience for it. Different to baseball where there is a clear 1-2 between the Yankees and Mets.

And yes SF is still a public team. Any team with the legacy they have will have it. Sure they suck now, but there are millions of people who grew up as fans during the Montana/Young days who are still fans to this day.

[Bronn Stone]

Is San Francisco still a public team, over a decade after Steve Young retired? How long do teams remain public? Was Buffalo a public team in the 1990s? I'm not trying to poke holes in this list, I just like chewing on the boundaries of lists like this.

Good questions. The Raiders would have been second or third on any such list up until the late 80's.

But Buffalo didn't really ever get there IMO. In fact, I'd suspect that the 70's Bills teams with OJ drew better in national telecasts relative to average than the 90's.

Interesting also that the lists do not include either New York franchise. Even though the Giants have been consistently above average for the last decade plus. Chicago as well, though Chicago has been more up and down. Both cities practically define public teams in baseball.

[Jaime L]

But Buffalo didn't really ever get there IMO. In fact, I'd suspect that the 70's Bills teams with OJ drew better in national telecasts relative to average than the 90's.

I would argue the 70s Bills became a National Team again in the mid 90s when OJ set off in search of the real killers.

[Arakasi]

Pretty much. Cities rarely have public teams in more than one sport. NY and Boston are exceptions, but that is due to their size. I think Chicago has a couple public teams, but that is the Bulls and Cubs, not the Bears.

I think the Raiders moving their location twice kind of hurt them in that regard, as well as 2 decades of mostly mediocre teams.

I wish I could remember the exact list Lombardi gave about public teams, but certainly Dallas, GB, Pitt, SF and I think NE were in it. NE is the one I feel least sure about.

[Maithanet]

I wish I could remember the exact list Lombardi gave about public teams, but certainly Dallas, GB, Pitt, SF and I think NE were in it. NE is the one I feel least sure about.

I'm likewise not sold on SF. For casual fans, yes, it matters, but for people who pay attention to the NFL the Niners have been pretty bad for a while. Even when they were decent with Garcia they didn't get much attention.

I admit that my own allegiances may be coming into play, but I think that the NFC East is the Public Division. All four teams play for big market cities and have had long periods of success. Every other division in football has at least one, (sometimes three) teams that nobody particularly cares about outside of their cities.